NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.

CARDELL GAUFF , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA

- CR 13

- 0574 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2001

- 006778 The Honorable Roland J. Steinle , Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELI EF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office , Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent

Cardell Gauff , Florence Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge Donn Kessler joined.STATE v. GAUFF Decision of the Court

2 T H U M M A , Judge :
¶1 Petitioner Cardell Gauff seeks review of the superior court’s order summarily dismissing what appears to be his fifth petition for post

conviction relief , filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1 (2015) 1

. Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post

- conviction relief. See State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577 ¶ 19, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (2012). Finding no such error, this court grants review but denies relief.
¶2 Gauff’s convictions for armed robbery and aggravated assault were affirmed on direct appeal nearly 13 years ago

. S ee S tate v. Gauff , 1 CA

CR 92

- 1029 ( Ariz. App. Sept. 10, 2002 ) (mem. dec.). 2 H is most recent notice and petition for post

- conviction relief , filed July 8, 2013, allege s ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, due process violations and illegal sentence

. The superior court found Gauff’s claims untimely and successive and ruled that Gauff failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted in an untimely or successive petition.
¶3 Gauff was sentenced on November 7, 2001 and the mandate i ssued on his direct appeal on October 22, 2002 . Thus, the July 8, 2013 notice and petition for post

- conviction relief are untimely and successive. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(a) (setting deadlines for filing notice of post

- conviction relief ). A defendant who commences an untimely or successive Rule 32 post

- conviction proceeding is limited to raising claims pursuant to Rule 32.1(d), (e), (f), (g) or (h). See i d. Gauff’s claims for relief , however, are not proper claims that may be raise d in an untimely or s uccessive post

conviction relief proceeding. Accordingly, the superior court did not err in

summar il y dismiss ing the post

- c onviction proceeding because Gauff failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted under Rule 32. See State v. Manning , 143 Ariz. 139, 141, 692 P.2d 318, 320 ( App. 1984).

1 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.

2 This court previously denied review of the superior court ’ s summary dismissals of two subsequent petitions for post

- conviction relief. State v. Gauff , 1 CA

- CR 04

- 0787 PR P C ( Ariz. App. Aug. 10, 20 0 5 ) ( dec

. order ); State v. Gauff , 1 CA

- CR 07

- 0220 PR PC ( Ariz. App. Nov

. 30, 2007 ) (dec. order )

. The superior court also summarily denied Gauff’s June 16, 2008 notice of post

conviction relief and March 25, 2009 notice of and petiti on for post

conviction relief. Gauff did not seek review by this court of those rulings.STATE v. GAUFF Decision of the Court

3 ¶4 For th es e reasons, this court grants review but denies relief

.